Auswirkung der Gruppengröße auf die Entwicklung der Ovarien bei Hummel-Arbeiterinnen (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CNAANI J, WONG A & THOMSON J D [Dep Zool, Univ Toronto, Ont, Canada]: Effect of Group Size on Ovarian Development in Bumblebee Workers (Hymenoptera: Apidae: Bombus). - Entomol Gener 29(2/4): 305-314; Stuttgart 2007-01. --- [Note] Isolated bumblebee workers. Bombus impatiens Cresson 1863, developed their ovaries to produce laying-sized eggs in 11 days, but did so 5 days faster in queenless groups of 2-12 that they came to dominate. In groups larger than pairs, reproductive dominance (as measured by oocyte length) was distributed continuously in a graded hierarchy, rather than dichotomously. In groups, workers at a particular dominance rank position developed larger oocytes as group size increased, indicating that a focal bee's stimulus for reproductive development depends on the number of other bees that are subordinate to it. Attempts to relate ovarian development to visible behavioral manifestations of dominance were inconclusive because antagonistic interaction were infrequent.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".